Looking at the World South of Miami: Palmetto Bay, Cutler Bay, Pinecrest, South Miami and Miami-Dade County.

PB: Politics Ain’t War!

by SDM

Politics have no relation to morals.

-Niccolo Machiavelli

The great military strategist von Clausewitz wrote (SDM is paraphrasing) that war is merely an extension of policy. The quote is often misstated as politics is just war by another name. A careful reader can see that this particular misquotation might result in very tragic consequences.

The cold reality is that some treat politics as war because the two activities share many tactical similarities:

Politicians and generals try to force the opposition to expend resources as a means to wear-out the other side;

The ends often are used to justify the means in both types of conflicts; and

Casualties are expected and often ignored.

But politics can’t be war in a civilized society. The ends cannot justify the means and care must be taken to avoid conflating the war and politics.

Mr. Harris justified his public declaration by claiming that it had come to his attention that Ms. Boutsis had advised the council that the complaint had been filed against her. He went on to confirm the bar’s rule that complaints are kept confidential, especially by attorneys who are complaining against other attorneys. SDM presumes Mr. Harris to believe that once the attorney notifies her client of the existence of a complaint the confidentiality provision becomes inoperative.

Perhaps, but did Mr. Harris really need to stand up and tell the council (and by extension the world) that the complaint was filed?

SDM Aside: Apparently, he felt the need to exonerate the Vice Mayor from having taken any part in the act. SDM figures Mr. Dubois can manage his own P.R., thank you very much.

SDM Wonders: Or, was this just a back-door mechanism of publicizing the existence of the complaint so as to weaken further Ms. Boutsis? Frankly, it’s a close enough call that the Florida Bar ought to consider investigating Mr. Harris’s true motivation.

This blog has not been kind, at least lately, to Ms. Boutsis. She made a major hash of the Coral Reef Park Master Plan item and deserves to be reviewed. SDM is also completely comfortable with putting her contract out to bid, partly based on performance issues and partly because doing so is long overdue.

But SDM does not believe that Ms. Boutsis deserves to have her living placed in jeopardy. Mr. Harris’s attempt to do so looks a lot like a personal attack, rather than fair debate in the political realm.

The other disturbing news that came to light is that lots of folks are taking extra-political action (lawsuits, mostly) against various residents and council members. SDM has no way of knowing whether any of these actions are justified, but their existence begs the question of whether these actions have any relation to morals? Or are they just politics by other means?

SDM Says: When politics adopt the tactics of war, we start to look a lot more like Congress than a village.

23 Comments to “PB: Politics Ain’t War!”

The actual quote by Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. Col. J.J. Graham, is, “We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.”

This, of course, does not mean the opposite is true: that politics is a continuation of war by other means. Politics is the power to persuade. War is the power to destroy until a political body may employ a more utilitarian means of persuasion to govern. This much is agreed to.

Yet who is SDM to question the morality of individuals who seek to have their rights vindicated against those on the council and their cadre of supporters, who would stop at nothing to maintain their power. And who, while in office, would go so far as to invoke their authority, as if it were their own personal war powers, to destroy a particular private school in the name of neighborhood protection, spending a great deal of public treasure in the process.

Insofar as the council undertook to wipe out a good Christian School at all costs, it’s safe to say it abandoned all morality in the process. Thus, SDM’s sense of right and wrong in this instance either is grossly distorted, or SDM has a very short memory.

Finally, as for the Bar complaint against Boutsis, what lawyer in their right mind would break privilege and announce to others that she was facing one to begin with.

The Bar, as a self-governing body, protects those who in good faith believe a violation of the rules has occurred, and gives those it believes have violated the rules notice and a chance to be heard. Under the rules, Ms. Boutsis’ rights are thoroughly protected. Perhaps SDM should conduct its own investigation before jumping to conclusions. All the records are public.

Did Mr. Harris break his client’s confidentiality in making the announcement about the bar complaint?

Ms. Boutsis did not announce the complaint to the public. She advised her clients privately. That means the information certainly relates to the ongoing litigation and the City Attorney did what any good attorney would do; she privately advised her clients of the new development. It also means that Mr. Harris’ only source of the disclosure came from a member of the village council.

Mr. Harris should answer a few questions:
1. Was it his client, whom he shares with the village attorney on a conflicting matter, who broke the attorney/client privilege in sharing that private communication?
2. Did Mr. Harris’ client have the authorization to pass on the information to Mr. Harris provided to him by the City Attorney?
3. Having been advised of his client’s privileged attorney/client communication with the City Attorney, did his client authorize him to further disseminate such information?
4. What right does Mr. Harris have to divulge privileged information that the client provides to him in what also should be a separate privileged communication?

Perhaps the Florida Bar should look into more than Mr. Harris’ motivation for filing the complaint. Perhaps the Florida Bar should investigate whether Mr. Harris is improperly releasing attorney/client protected information to harass others. Certainly it appears that someone is not willing to wait for the Florida Bar to investigate, but instead is attempting to use private information and innuendo to ruin the fine reputation of the City Attorney.

That is a horse of a different color, as SDM is sure you well know. So, you were not referring to attorney-client privilege but rather some generic, personal privilege then.

SDM suspects you are self-correcting here, which you have a right to do, of course. But our question becomes even more pertinent given the clarification: Is a confidential bar complaint subject to general public disclosure by the complainant merely because its existence was disclosed to clients?

The fact that Ms. Boutsis took the risk that one of her clients might disclose the existence of a bar complaint to a third party does not necessarily mean that the complaining attorney was not ethically bound to keep the complaint confidential.

Whose horse are you referring to? There are 2 horses in this conversation. When someone opens their mouth they run the risk the message will spread. The complainant has no ethical obligation to keep quiet, especially once the announcement is made by the very person against whom the complaint is made. In other words the cat is out of the bag. A more pertinent question is who does Boutsis represent. Does she represent the council as a body, or individual members, or both. If she discloses to them something that is not confidential then she cannot expect any one of then to keep it confidential.

The question in SDM’s humble opinion is whether a complaining attorney may disclose his confidential, pending bar complaint merely because he claims to know that the target attorney disclosed the existence of the complaint to her client or clients.

Stated another way, did Mr. Harris have an ethical duty under the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar to honor the confidentiality requirements of bar complaints regardless of whether the council was told of the complaint’s existence.

Not nearly as dirty as the actions taken by the council against a certain private school, which Boutsis blessed and is now attempting to insulate from liability by refusing to counsel her clients to release the shade transcripts based on made up grounds. By the way the rule you site only applies to pending or prospective litigation where the recipient of the Bar complaint is being sued, or may be sued, by the complainant. That does not seem to be the case here.

I am a Village resident and have never given my opinion on this blog, although I do read it every now and then. I understand very well the issue with Palmer Trinity and agree completely that the school should expand. But I must say that I am outraged at the attacks on third parties in this matter. I agree that Ms. Boutsis has been the Village attorney for 10 years and maybe it will be a good idea to bid the work and see what it out there. As long as this is done in good faith. But the personal attacks on this woman I find difficult to live with. We are talking about jeopardizing this woman’s bar license. Is this all in the name of politics? Is this going to make Mr. Harris sleep better at night. I understand from Mr. Harris’ public comments at the COW meeting that there was 2 inches worth of invoices/bills/attachments to the letter which he submitted to the Florida Bar. Correct me if I am wrong, were these bills not approved by the Council over the course of 10 years? Were these bills not made available to the public upon request? Was Mr. Harris the only person bright enough in the entire Village to figure that there was something so horribly wrong with these bills that warranted a Florida Bar complaint? It is very disturbing to me to live a community that can be so vindictive vindictive and would go as far as to ruin someone’s reputation, ability to make a living and career. When I moved here I thought I was choosing a great community to raise my children, I am second guessing that decision.

I find that SDM has been pretty fair when it comes to Village matters and calls it as it sees it. I am glad that this matter was brought up. We as a community need to draw the line when it comes to casualties of this political war. I have a suggestion to the council, how about trying to come together with no hidden agendas, leave your egos at the door, leave your dislike for each other at home and try to work together. This is the reason why we voted you into office. As for the Village Attorney, is it really fair to target a person who has served us for 10 years, who has worked to make a good community out of the Village of Palmetto Bay? Has she been perfect, I say no? But then again which of us are which of us have never made a mistake? Does this woman really deserved to be stoned because she is caught in the middle of 5 individuals who can’t seem to work together? It is very simple to point the blame and use people for political agendas, but the buck stops with the council and the blame should not be placed on anyone else. Does anyone think that if Ms. Boutsis would no longer be the Village Attorney this council will miraculous be able to work together? I say no, therefore the problem is not the Village Attorney, the problem is the entire council and their inability to work together. I do feel that I need to point out that although I was a supporter of Mr. Dubois, I am second guessing that decision as well. Not sure if I would have voted for a man who associates and hires as his attorney a man who would stoop so low as to try to ruin a colleagues reputation and tamper with her ability to make a living for what seems to be political gain for someone.

I have no specific details regarding the bar complaint, but in my opinion for obvious reasons, she should resign her position as Village Attorney. Ms. Boutsis has played the games of politics for the last two years and it was destined to catch up with her. In my opinion, she has done everything in her power to protect both the Mayor Stanczyk and Councilwoman Lindsay, instead of representing the good citizens of Palmetto Bay.

She has personally denied me access to public information without offering any legitimate reasons. She stated in December 2012 that she was going to follow up on the Attorney General’s letter regarding the release of the shade sessions and to my knowledge (I’ve asked numerous times) never done any further research. She has blocked me from access to her audit litigation confirmations, whereby I then asked her for an Attorney General opinion. Once again, no response.

If it weren’t for a request from a Council member, I too would be filing my own bar complaint against her due to some of the actions while she’s been on the Council.

I’m sure that Mr. Dubois can speak for himself, but he has no interest in hurting Ms. Boutsis’s livelihood or professional reputation. In addition, he had no knowledge of the Bar Complaint until it was revealed.

All of your issues with the village attorney regarding performance (i.e., responsiveness to requests from village residents) are fair game for discussion. Filing bar complaints based on a village attorney’s failure to timely respond is not legitimate. Bar complaints should be reserved for serious violations of the rules of conduct.

With respect to Mr. Dubois, SDM really wishes third parties would refrain from putting words into his mouth or thoughts into his brain. With due respect to your relationship to the Vice Mayor, you are doing him no favors by claiming to speak for him.

I’m not sure I 100% agree with your other position. Blocking access to documents that I have the right to have under Sunshine, I would assume would be a violation of conduct. But then again, what do I know. I’ll leave that up to individuals who are trained in that area. From what I’ve been told there is a 30 day window after I make a public information request.

Under the public records law it is the clerk or the designated custodian of records who must release documents in response to a properly submitted public records request. The attorney’s job is to determine, if necessary, whether the records can be released or redacted. Informal requests are handled differently. Your beef may be with the clerk.

If the Bar yanks Boutsis’ license it will be for good reason. Rules governing how a lawyer bills a client are there for a reason and violations are taken very seriously. As far as this reader is concerned whatever may come her way will be collateral damage in a war declared and perpetuated by the Three Amigos against innocent schools and churches. She has been a big part of the problem.

Again, you make SDM’s point perfectly. And who appointed this particular individual as the protector of these parties? Do the innocents know that the gentleman is acting in their names? Do they approve of his scorched earth tactics?

SDM doubts that the churches and schools – most of them Christian – would take kindly to such use of their causes. Maybe certain players in this drama ought to take a broader look at whether they want to be associated with this particular actor.

SDM has obviously become an apologist for a regime he so adamantly and vehemently opposed for so long. You’re about to reveal yourself as the knight in shining armor here to rescue the damsel in distress. Maybe certain players in SDM’s fairy tale ought to look closely at the hypocrite who calls himself SDM. We can smell his identity.

I find it interesting that Singer, Harris and Zisman, three…[SDM Edit: Look, this blog has said repeatedly that personal attacks are not permitted here. The insinuation in your comment is particularly obnoxious and unwelcome. Please find another forum for your hate speech.]